The United States is distinctive in many ways, but at least one unique characteristic may change in the coming months. We are one of just two countries in the world that permits prescription drug advertisements to be beamed directly to consumers — that is, to patients rather than doctors. (The other, if you were wondering, is New Zealand.)

Back in September, the Food and Drug Administration sent thousands of letters to pharmaceutical firms and issued a press release declaring a crackdown on deceptive drug advertising.

At the same time, the agency issued about a hundred cease-and-desist orders to companies with ads it deemed deceptive.

We could not be more pleased. After all, we’ve been complaining for years about prescription drug ads on television and online. Consequently, we’re delighted to read that: “By closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement, the FDA will protect patients, safeguard public health and hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable.”

Hopefully, this new action will have an impact. We are getting impatient, though. The letters that the FDA sent in September requested a response within 15 days. Has the agency received meaningful answers? We don’t know.

In some ways, direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising goes back a long time.

In the 19th century, traveling salesmen would put on shows to peddle patent medicines wherever they went. Back then, there was no FDA nor even any television.

By the mid-20th century, TV offered a wonderful opportunity for companies to promote their over-the-counter products.

If you are old enough, you can remember ads for Excedrin, Alka-Seltzer, Preparation H and Listerine, among other products. But people were not accustomed to advertisements for prescription drugs.

The first TV ad for a prescription medicine aired on May 19, 1983. It was not elaborate, merely telling people that if they were taking prescription ibuprofen (Motrin), they could get it cheaper as Rufen. No description of what it was for or any side effects. Just price.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulators alike were disconcerted by this novel idea, and a moratorium on DTC ads went into effect in September 1983. The FDA changed its mind and permitted such commercials in 1985, but it required full disclosure of side effects. Perhaps that’s why there was not an immediate rush to take advantage of this new opportunity.

Things changed in 1997, though. The FDA relaxed the requirement on full disclosure, so long as the ad made “adequate provision” for people to get more information through a website or toll-free number, for example. With that loophole, the floodgates opened. Spending on DTC prescription drug ads went from $360 million in 1995 to $10.8 billion last year. On some shows, it seems as if nearly every other commercial is for a prescription medication to treat psoriasis, diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary: “For far too long, the FDA has permitted misleading drug advertisements, distorting the doctor-patient relationship and creating increased demand for medications regardless of clinical appropriateness.” He also observed: “Drug companies spend up to 25% of their budget on advertising. Those billions of dollars would be better spent on lowering drug prices for everyday Americans.”

We’d surely love to see that. Perhaps you would, too. When will it happen?

In their column, Joe and Teresa Graedon answer letters from readers. Write to them in care of King Features, 300 W. 57th Street, 41st Floor, New York, NY 10019, or email them via their website: www.PeoplesPharmacy.com. Their newest book is “Top Screwups Doctors Make and How to Avoid Them.”